NKJV Staying Power

Status
Not open for further replies.

Northern Crofter

Puritan Board Freshman
Won't a denominational version imply all churches in the denomination hold onto that version? That would mean TR/Majority text pastors may have to give in to a CT version (assuming a denominational version is based on the CT). That could be a potential rift.
With all solemnness, sometimes such division is a means of reform and revival:

¶ Now in this that I declare, I praise you not, that ye come together, not with profit, but with hurt.
For first of all, when ye come together in the Church, I hear that there are dissensions among you: and I believe it to be true in some part.
For there must be heresies even among you, that they which are approved among you, might be known. - I Cor. 11.17-19

Is there any issue more fundamental (and, therefore, worthy of serious discourse) than the purity and inspiration of the Scriptures?
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
So when the new NKJV comes out, will it be called the New King James Version, and our current one called the Old New King James Version?

Or will it be called the New New King James Version?
 

NM_Presby

Puritan Board Freshman
For those interested, since I posted this, I have been reading from the NKJV and have decided to make it my go-to translation for reading and memorization. I'm really enjoying it.

As I've been thinking more about the original question I asked, I do think based on input from you all, and indicators I'm seeing, the NKJV will continue to hold a position like where it sits now for some time to come. It clearly gets good play in the premium Bible community, and it does still have a major share of the market in Bible sales and use. It will probably never rise to the top of the bestsellers list, but based on the niche it fills and the still substantial number who use it, I do think it's hard to imagine it dropping entirely out of the mainstream.

Either way, thanks all for your input!
 

NM_Presby

Puritan Board Freshman
Also as a side note, as @Pilgrim mentioned, I am seriously impressed with the newer editions Thomas Nelson has been cranking out. They seem to be outdoing even Crossway in the quality and affordability of their Bibles. That gives me hope too that they are committed to the NKJV "as is" for the foreseeable future.
 

Scottish Presbyterian

Puritan Board Freshman
It is often concerning to me that in almost all of the discussions about translations, very few mention the role of the Church. If the Word of God is the basis of our faith and practice, shouldn't the Church (national or denominational) declare what translations it approves of (if not able to produce their own)? Why do we leave it to publishers who are not ordained or bound by any type of Church authority to decide what the Word of God is or how it should be translated? Most creeds/confessions start with a list of canonical books, which was determined by the Church (it would seem the text was not in dispute at that point), so why does the Church now not use its power and authority to commend a translation (or translations)? I am not suggesting that the Church declare a particular translation to be inspired (as some KJV-only types do), but they could/should certainly use their authority to guide the flock to the purest waters. As a Westminster subscriber, the Confession seems to indicate that when the Scriptures are "translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come" it should be under the Church's authority, as the proof texts come from 1 Corinthians 14:27–28 (translation of unknown languages in the Church). I have switched over to and been using the old Geneva Bible for many years now. It is a TR version that predates the KJV by a few years, so I don't have to worry about missing parts. The "thees" and "thous" help me understand many passages I might otherwise misinterpret (it is surprising how many times the singular vs. plural distinction is important). The notes are old but often as insightful as they are succinct. The vast majority of times I look up the original text because the translation seems odd, I find the translation to be accurate. And the Geneva Bible was adopted by the Scottish Church soon after 1560 for use in churches so it has the approval of what was a faithful Church at the time. Also, it was not written because the publisher(s) hoped it would be popular and make a huge profit (although it was and did!), it written by ordained men to give the Church a faithful translation. Shouldn't that be the primary judge of a translation's worthiness? (My apologies if this response takes this thread away from the originator's intent).
Yes, this. It is the role of the church, as such, to translate the Scriptures. As in other areas, so too in the matter of Bible translations, the influence of parachurch organisations has been very pernicious, with the result that we have such a multitude of bible versions (in English), which is harmful to the peace and unity of the visible church, and sows confusion about what the bible actually says in some places.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
I am seriously impressed with the newer editions Thomas Nelson has been cranking out. They seem to be outdoing even Crossway in the quality and affordability of their Bibles.
Except all of Thomas Nelson’s text blocks are printed in China. :banghead:
 

Brian R.

Puritan Board Freshman
I've come to really enjoy the NKJV over the past year or so. (KJV is still my #1, though.) I can attest to the nice Thomas Nelson China printings. Their $100 Premier Collection bibles are excellent. Now... Just wish Thomas Nelson, Schuyler, and Cambridge would stop with the awful red letter editions. I can't stand those. Still baffled as to how the red letter text ever became so popular.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top